Disposed¶36

Challamalla Sharmila Rani v. Challamalla Ammiraju

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2026CRLP/2021/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedited disposal / speedy trial; direction to Family Court Visakhapatnam without fixed time-limit; F.C.O.P.No.1727 of 2025; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Article 21 speedy justice; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 para 86(10); High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. AIROnline 2024 SC 143 para 32; report to Registrar (Judicial); Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati, 13.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Family Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to dispose of F.C.O.P.No.1727 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial); pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, ordered closed. ¶36

Challamalla Sharmila Rani Vs Challamalla Ammiraju — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010130442026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2021/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

CHALLAMALLA SHARMILA RANI, W/O CH AMMI RAJU, OCC HOUSEWIFE, FLAT NO.SF-2, D.NO.50-121-29/1, STERLING TOWERS, B.S,. LAYOUT, NORTH EXTENSION, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAME

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

CHALLAMALLA AMMIRAJU, S/O LAKSHMANA MURTHY, OCC. CULTIVATION, D.NO.4-84, PURUSHOTHAPATNAM VILLAGE, SITHANAGARAM MANDAL, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DIST

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATI

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶16

MADHU SUDANA SAI RAM ASADI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

¶20

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2021 of 2026 Dated 13.03.2026

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking a direction to the learned Family Judge-Cum-V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, to dispose of the case in F.C.O.P.No.1727 of 2025, as early as possible.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶25

As seen from the record, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the F.C.O.P.No.1727 of 2025 on the file of the learned Family Judge-Cum-V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay

¶26

v. R.S. Nayak¹ , wherein at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under:

¶27

“(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.”

¶28

1(1992) 1 SCC 225

¶29

¶30

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2021 of 2026 Dated 13.03.2026

¶31

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v.

¶32

State of U.P² at paragraph No.32 held as under:

¶33

“32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a timebound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.”

¶34

It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra . However, the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Judge-Cum-V Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam, is directed to dispose of the case in F.C.O.P.No.1727 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial).

¶36